What constitutes in real life information and what is the punishment?

[_Trevor]

1. You get a month to cool your jets and come back.

2. If a month wasn't enough to cool your jets, try 6 months.

3. By the end of 6 months, your jets will either be ice, you will forget about the board entirely or you'll come back in a vengeful fury in which case I deem you a psycho and don't want you on the board. Period.

I like this because it has real bite, but gives what I think are generous opportunities to renew participation in the community until it becomes obvious that one is not interested in behaving.

Some might think that this would have no effect because the person could always come back as a sock-puppet. While this is technically true, I do think there is a good deal of investment that a person has in a particular persona. Think of Kevin Graham's history at MA&D. When he pops up to engage on the Book of Abraham, he is shut out in quick order, because he and his usual agenda are rather readily recognized.

Now, before people pop up and say, "See, you want this board to be MA&D!," recognize that I am only discussing the hypothetical of a banned person--someone who has clearly demonstrated a pattern of malicious and irresponsible behavior in the community--who tries to skirt the ban and come back. I am not advocating becoming MA&D or defending their treatment of Kevin.

What brought this to mind was my inner dialogue on leaving the board. Part of me thought I could abandon Trevor and then return on the sly under a sock-puppet, and that no one would be the wiser, but I would be extremely limited in what I could say, if I did not want people to recognize me as Trevor. And, I have enjoyed participating in the board the way I have. I do not want to create different personae and be limited to those just to participate.

It would be like leaving my circle of friends, getting radical plastic surgery, and then returning to the group to start at ground zero with them, and having to avoid letting on that I was that guy they once knew. Ugh. Too much effort.

[_marg]

I was just curious if you thought it was consistent with the spirit of your suggestion.

What I'm thinking of is if someone who knew you in real life googled your name, whether they would/could arrive at this board. If that could happen then you are linked to all the views you've expressed on here for as long as that remains in google land, and that potentially can be used by others against you. So even posting your home web, pictures, anything that would link to you and identify you as the poster of the posts, could create potential problems that may not be foreseen at this time.

[_Trevor]

by the way, PM me your personal information, and I'll divulge it at a later date. It's no big deal, right?

He seems to be saying, if I may speculate a little, that because he has been smart enough not to do that, there is no problem. He may actually believe that if I make reference to things that allow people to figure out who I am, they can do whatever the hell they want with any information they may dig up. I'm just a big baby for thinking this is a problem. (Note that I am not saying this is what a certain someone has done, but these are the implications of this line of thinking.)

[_Some Schmo]

What brought this to mind was my inner dialogue on leaving the board. Part of me thought I could abandon Trevor and then return on the sly under a sock-puppet, and that no one would be the wiser, but I would be extremely limited in what I could say, if I did not want people to recognize me as Trevor. And, I have enjoyed participating in the board the way I have. I do not want to create different personae and be limited to those just to participate.

It would be like leaving my circle of friends, getting radical plastic surgery, and then returning to the group to start at ground zero with them, and having to avoid letting on that I was that guy they once knew. Ugh. Too much effort.

No doubt.

About five years ago, just for fun (and as a sort of writing exercise) I tried creating a sock puppet on The Foyer as a guy who was just learning troubling church history and in the process of losing his testimony. I gave up after three posts (max... it may have been two). Waaaaay too much effort. I mostly didn't want to have to keep my BS straight. Oh, the webs we weave...

If I can't be just some schmo, I don't want to be anyone.

[_Some Schmo]

by the way, PM me your personal information, and I'll divulge it at a later date. It's no big deal, right?

He seems to be saying, if I may speculate a little, that because he has been smart enough not to do that, there is no problem. He may actually believe that if I make reference to things that allow people to figure out who I am, they can do whatever the hell they want with any information they may dig up. I'm just a big baby for thinking this is a problem. (Note that I am not saying this is what a certain someone has done, but these are the implications of this line of thinking.)

I suspect you're giving him more credit than is deserved. I'm not sure he's thought it through that far.

I think he's just messing with us.

[_Redefined]

If I can't be just some schmo, I don't want to be anyone.

Good! Ain't no one like him! :)

[_MCB]

Agreed. If you have figured out the person's identity in real life, you can make allusions to it, but to directly post information about it would be contrary to civil behavior. As to the person's identity on other boards, if they use the same handle, that is OK. If they do not, then it is not.

As an example, because the Mormons at Catholic.com had me on ignore, I registered another identity, had a brief flame-out with my previous identity, who was hurt and left. I was then able to present some ideas through my new identity. It lasted long enough to give me satisfaction.

[_ttribe]

I agree Scott after thinking about it, he shouldn't be referred to by his last name. I did change my post before seeing your post.

I think what ttribe is referring to is the fact that Scratch had posted a picture of him without his permission.

Granted, he did get the picture from the linkedin link on Tim's signature, but that still doesn't give him the right to post it.

I also believe that Scratch's use of Tim's first and last name were done maliciously. That would be a tough call, since technically, Tim HAS used both his first and last name on this board, so I don't know that Scratch broke a rule per say. Tim, what would your call be on that one?

First, I've never had my LinkedIn profile linked through a signature on this board. It is on MA&DB, but not here. For the longest time, I didn't have a sig here, until Gad broke out with the gem that I use now.

I expressed my concern previously that he was using my first and last name together in a post (something I've never done) for the express purpose of making my name be associated with those comments he made about me. Yes, I thought it was malicious.

[_Scottie]

First, I've never had my LinkedIn profile linked through a signature on this board. It is on MA&DB, but not here. For the longest time, I didn't have a sig here, until Gad broke out with the gem that I use now.

My bad.

I expressed my concern previously that he was using my first and last name together in a post (something I've never done) for the express purpose of making my name be associated with those comments he made about me. Yes, I thought it was malicious.

But do you believe he broke any rules according to what is being proposed? Should intent and malice go into the decision making process?

In other words, should a mod be able to say that a poster didn't technically break any rules, but... come on!! Personally, I don't like this approach because I think this opens dangerous grounds for biased moderation.

[_Jersey Girl]

Tervor

Some might think that this would have no effect because the person could always come back as a sock-puppet.

Except in the case of certain circumstances, Admin can see the sock puppets on this board.